Author
Topic: EOS 7D Mark II Test Camera [CR1] (Read 55811 times)

Canon 7D MK II need to beat Sony and Nikon and 5D MK III, don't forget when Canon release the 7D is a small revolution performance vs price many people prefer 7D and sell 5D MK II.The 7D MK II must have better sport performance than 5D MK IIIWhen the 7D MK ii release, the price for other camera drop i am not exciting about this specification. i hope more.

I shot all my primes wide open and got tack sharp images in many situations with my 7D. I can't complain at all, it's AF system fulfilled all my needs and did so elegantly. It's not as good as the mk3 but the 7D AF was plenty for my needs. I think the center point on the 7D is a double cross type just like the MK3. Not sure but I think I read it somewhere.

It is double cross too but there is a lot more to a point than whether it is single, double or double cross. 5D3 non-cross points sure lock a lot better and faster than the non-cross in the 5D2 and the center double on the 5D3 has ultra-precision mode when used with some lenses and that really makes a difference.

All I'm saying is that the 7D AF is still very good. It's the lowest benchmark I hold for a semi professional canon AF system, which basically means that I will not shoot on a semi-pro camera with an AF system less than that.

I never had issues with any points on my 7D, they were all pretty consistent and delivered the goods. Moving up to the mk3 was easy as it was like shooting a better FF version of the 7D AF. If they implement the same AF in the 7Dii, I won't be disappointed but if they improve it, all is well.

I still think it would be a grave mistake to make their action/reach/speed demon/reach camera not have top AF. It's 2013 and a camera that can only very modestly focus soccer better than a 50D doesn't seem like a smart move to me. Then again they made the 5D do ai servo better than the xxD series and the xxD series AF outer points better which never really made the most sense.

Probably, if its got amazing low light performance and doesn't weigh as much as a 1DX...

... and if it can't meet those requirements, I'll just buy a 1DX and try to live with not having the extra reach of a 1.6 crop.

The trade off for the 1.6 crop and 20+ MP is low light performance. The area of each light collecting photo site is 35% of the area on the 1Dx - here is my math. Correct me if I made an error. 1.6 crop on means that a full frame camera would be 2.56 times the sensor size so the 7D M2 has the same pixel density as a 50 MP full frame camera. 18 MP / 50MP is around 35%..

You will be loose several stops of s/n - so high ISO will necesarrily be weaker. However AF does not need to be.

Interresting, in Japenese forums he specs are handeld a little bit better. Price over the 5D3

Price over 5D3, Whaaaaaahaaaahahahahahaa.

for the price to be around the 5DIII, i'd expect sensor performance similar to that of the 1DX, 5DIIIish AF, similar or better weather sealing to the 7D, maybe one card slot to differentiate/cripple it a bit, and 8FPS.With the specs listed in this rumor i'd say the price all depends on the sensor. If it has greatly improved sensor performance then Canon might ask $1999(and that would be too much) or if it has the current APS-C sensor tech i'd say they'd price it at $1500(and that would be too much.)right now, Nikon has the D5200 and D7100 which outside of the FPS are both comparable to this camera and both are priced around $1000ish.

These specs are closer to the Nikon 7100, a $1200 camera body. I would suggest that these specs are probably for the 70D, not the 7DMK2. They will never be able to charge a premium for a 7DMK2 with these specs. Nikon has upped the expectations of what APS bodies should be and Canon will have to respond. If Canon stays with these specs Nikon will release a better APS-C camera and Canon will once more be well behind the curve.

This is what I was thinking. If this camera is released with these specs and the current sensor performance I don't see any way this camera could cost more than $1600 given the D7100's specs. And at those prices i'd probably recommend the D7100 unless Canon has some sensor magic up their sleeves.

21MP APS C Fair enough for a APS-C sensor ISO 100-25600 (L: 50, H1 51200, H2 102400) this is a reasonable ISO for a 1DX intended backup camera 10fps reasonable Video ‘stills burst’ mode 30/60 fpsI believe the strong point of 7D2 will be video.... if will be capable to shoot 1080P at 60fps and 720P at 90 or 120fps, than this feature will be a real improvement Full HD video with manual controlexpected.... Single CF Card SlotI believe this will be the biggest disappointment of the rumored camera 19 AF Points all Cross maybe will be a faster AF ( due to the DIGIC 5 processors... I personally prefer a strong 19 AF point instead of a crippled 51 AF. On chip phase detect pixels for liveview and AF trackingexpected feature 100% ViewfinderNormal in those days Viewfinder LCD Higher Resolution Than 7Dexpected feature 3.2″ LCDexpected GPS, WiFigood for distance remote control when shooting wildlife Alloy body with better weather sealing over 7Dagain...expected feature

The only big question is: how much the IQ will be improved ? i mean high ISO capability and sharpness ( mushy images).I also believe that with those specs Canon will keep the price under $2000.. maybe at 1899 or 1999 at launch.

Interresting, in Japenese forums he specs are handeld a little bit better. Price over the 5D3

Price over 5D3, Whaaaaaahaaaahahahahahaa.

for the price to be around the 5DIII, i'd expect sensor performance similar to that of the 1DX, 5DIIIish AF, similar or better weather sealing to the 7D, maybe one card slot to differentiate/cripple it a bit, and 8FPS.With the specs listed in this rumor i'd say the price all depends on the sensor. If it has greatly improved sensor performance then Canon might ask $1999(and that would be too much) or if it has the current APS-C sensor tech i'd say they'd price it at $1500(and that would be too much.)right now, Nikon has the D5200 and D7100 which outside of the FPS are both comparable to this camera and both are priced around $1000ish.

These specs are closer to the Nikon 7100, a $1200 camera body. I would suggest that these specs are probably for the 70D, not the 7DMK2. They will never be able to charge a premium for a 7DMK2 with these specs. Nikon has upped the expectations of what APS bodies should be and Canon will have to respond. If Canon stays with these specs Nikon will release a better APS-C camera and Canon will once more be well behind the curve.

This is what I was thinking. If this camera is released with these specs and the current sensor performance I don't see any way this camera could cost more than $1600 given the D7100's specs. And at those prices i'd probably recommend the D7100 unless Canon has some sensor magic up their sleeves.

if this is a 70D, then it's great.But, for 7D, i'd expect atleast 19selectable AF points and a ten more assist ones.And, built in wifi and GPS is going to be having a plastic top shell. So, that too sounds like 70D.

I don't see any way this camera could cost more than $1600 given the D7100's specs.

.. but given the market saturaration with lenses/flashes/other single-brand equipment Canon knows existing users seldom switch brands - you loose money selling gear and you have to get used to a new usability.

So how much would you pay to be able to stick to your old system? €500? €1000? That's what Canon can add on top of the camera price as seen on the 5d3 - and then there's the early adopter's fee of €200-€500. A "reasonable" price will only be achieved after about 2 years after rtm.

I don't see any way this camera could cost more than $1600 given the D7100's specs.

.. but given the market saturaration with lenses/flashes/other single-brand equipment Canon knows existing users seldom switch brands - you loose money selling gear and you have to get used to a new usability.

So how much would you pay to be able to stick to your old system? €500? €1000? That's what Canon can add on top of the camera price as seen on the 5d3 - and then there's the early adopter's fee of €200-€500. A "reasonable" price will only be achieved after about 2 years after rtm.

with the price of the updated Canon glass and the premium prices of new bodies compared to their competition, I wouldn't pay anything "stick to my old system."In fact, I was pretty perturbed at getting screwed on both sides of the equation, both lenses and bodies. So perturbed that I switched to a D700, which is just insanely awesome at $1500 bucks, as well as the 24-70G, which is also unbelievably nice, and which i bought for 700 bucks less than the new Canon version.

In fact, I was pretty perturbed at getting screwed on both sides of the equation, both lenses and bodies. So perturbed that I switched to a D700, which is just insanely awesome at $1500 bucks, as well as the 24-70G, which is also unbelievably nice, and which i bought for 700 bucks less than the new Canon version.

Doh - I hope Canon gets the message. If it wasn't for Magic Lantern (I like to program my dslr myself and rely on many features of it) I'd go the same way.

I don't see any way this camera could cost more than $1600 given the D7100's specs.

.. but given the market saturaration with lenses/flashes/other single-brand equipment Canon knows existing users seldom switch brands - you loose money selling gear and you have to get used to a new usability.

So how much would you pay to be able to stick to your old system? €500? €1000? That's what Canon can add on top of the camera price as seen on the 5d3 - and then there's the early adopter's fee of €200-€500. A "reasonable" price will only be achieved after about 2 years after rtm.

with the price of the updated Canon glass and the premium prices of new bodies compared to their competition, I wouldn't pay anything "stick to my old system."In fact, I was pretty perturbed at getting screwed on both sides of the equation, both lenses and bodies. So perturbed that I switched to a D700, which is just insanely awesome at $1500 bucks, as well as the 24-70G, which is also unbelievably nice, and which i bought for 700 bucks less than the new Canon version.

My thoughts exactly. Unless you have something like 5-10000$ invested in Canon glass, when you factor everything in, switching is not a big loss money-wise.

Unless you have something like 5-10000$ invested in Canon glass, when you factor everything in, switching is not a big loss money-wise.

How big "big" is depends on the net gain/loss after buying new equipment - and I know my equipment hasn't got pristine looks because I'm outdoors a lot and horses and such are always interested in inspecting my camera up close :-)

*And* then there's the psychological factor (I'm with Canon since the mid-90s) *and* the Canon/Nikon usability differences *and* the time/hassle to actually switch (time is money). So imho the threshold is very high, that's why Canon gets away with being current Canon.